New EYEMAGIC Scanners EMS7000

[planters]

I knew it. I had thought my non-orthogonal scanner orientation was SO cleaver and here you go and burst my ego bubble. Cambridge was there first. Oh well.

Bill,

I will wait for them, but will you be ready to submit them to this same level of scrutiny? I assume so. Good luck!

[loopee]

But wait there's more! In the case of Cambridge, they can get away with using a mirror that is only 5.08mm wide because their X-Y mount has a "15 degree set-back". If you're not familiar with this, take a look at this drawing. You will see that the X scanner has an angle with respect the Y mirror. (The angle is not specified, but you can trust me -- in most cases it is 15 degrees.)

Actually they do detail it on the 6215H X-Y Mount Interface document



Troy

[Pangolin]

Yes, but....

The mythical Pangolin scanners we've been *patiently* waiting for have yet to surface. Geez... with all that "free time" on your hands and everything... you'd THINK a set of world class scanners would be a simple order... LOL

Hehe, yes, lots of time on my hands indeed ;-)

Nevertheless, your patience hasn't been for naught... So far we've started delivering a world class actuator:
http://www.pangolin.com/VRA-1510/

And another one on the way with similar specs, but only half inch outside diameter. We believe the smaller version will be popular due to its compact size.

As for the scanners, nothing that Pangolin does is ever merely 20% better, or the same performance but 30% cheaper. We always do groundbreaking developments. Developing a scanner with substantially all new concepts takes time. (Remember, cancer isn't cured yet, neither is the common cold...)

Also, there are square-law and fourth-power-law implications:

* Heat inside the scanner is proportional to the SQUARE of scan angle (want twice the scan angle, that will cost you four times the heat)
* Heat inside the scanner is proportional to the FOURTH POWER of scan rate (want twice the speed, that will cost you SIXTEEN TIMES the heat)

So it means if we want to make a scanner that is "twice as fast" we have to do a job 16 times as well as the incumbent. When you put it in those terms, you can see the monumental challenge involved, and making a scanner that is merely 20% better isn't going to help anyone.

In any event, our actuators, which do some things that no other actuator can do, should serve as an indication that we're making progress and moving in the right direction ;-)

I knew it. I had thought my non-orthogonal scanner orientation was SO cleaver and here you go and burst my ego bubble. Cambridge was there first. Oh well.

Actually for sure it was not Cambridge who started this. I personally used a set backs as much as 45 degrees in 1989, at the Daytona Planetarium. Nevertheless I think it was -- once again -- Jean Montagu who came up with this -- same guy who founded General Scanning and also invented what is now known as the moving magnet scanner in around 1976 (although nobody knew it at the time since it was originally conceived as a small resonant scanner). You can see US Patent 4,076,998.

Bill,

I will wait for them, but will you be ready to submit them to this same level of scrutiny? I assume so. Good luck!

Actually YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT!!!

Actually they do detail it on the 6215H X-Y Mount Interface document

Aha. I hadn't looked that closely at Cambridge documents. Normally it has to be derived...


Bill

[dsli_jon]

..ann jos rremembah... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzG_J7RCGS0 ...arr Pangulyn, tuu, yeu bahstards!

..maybe people want something between 'Chivos' and CTs, ay, Capt'n?

ie: We like the CTs for when we want more 'buttery' / creamy output, ie: http://www.7mainstreet.com/imaging/b...931075-407.jpg and the EMS (4Ks) for when we need exorbitant-detail, and-at really-giant angles / scales... and they're great for higher-speed fx with mondo-mirs (ie: for large-beam KTPs and such..) w/O the risk of 'collapse'.. ..it's just nice to have 'options'....

..keen t' see the 'Pangvos', tho..

ciao
j

[swamidog]

awesome... when/if these go from vaporware to shipping product, i look forward to reviewing them to see if they really are 16x better than the competition.

until then, i'll go with the product i can buy.

Hehe, yes, lots of time on my hands indeed ;-)

Nevertheless, your patience hasn't been for naught... So far we've started delivering a world class actuator:
http://www.pangolin.com/VRA-1510/

And another one on the way with similar specs, but only half inch outside diameter. We believe the smaller version will be popular due to its compact size.

As for the scanners, nothing that Pangolin does is ever merely 20% better, or the same performance but 30% cheaper. We always do groundbreaking developments. Developing a scanner with substantially all new concepts takes time. (Remember, cancer isn't cured yet, neither is the common cold...)

Also, there are square-law and fourth-power-law implications:

* Heat inside the scanner is proportional to the SQUARE of scan angle (want twice the scan angle, that will cost you four times the heat)
* Heat inside the scanner is proportional to the FOURTH POWER of scan rate (want twice the speed, that will cost you SIXTEEN TIMES the heat)

So it means if we want to make a scanner that is "twice as fast" we have to do a job 16 times as well as the incumbent. When you put it in those terms, you can see the monumental challenge involved, and making a scanner that is merely 20% better isn't going to help anyone.

In any event, our actuators, which do some things that no other actuator can do, should serve as an indication that we're making progress and moving in the right direction ;-)





Actually for sure it was not Cambridge who started this. I personally used a set backs as much as 45 degrees in 1989, at the Daytona Planetarium. Nevertheless I think it was -- once again -- Jean Montagu who came up with this -- same guy who founded General Scanning and also invented what is now known as the moving magnet scanner in around 1976 (although nobody knew it at the time since it was originally conceived as a small resonant scanner). You can see US Patent 4,076,998.





Actually YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT!!! That's one thing that got me about the EMS-7000. Tom sent me the blusterous brochure a few weeks before he shipped his scanners. When I said "this is very nice Tom, but I simply don't believe this" he got all mad at me. When I said "I never believe anything unless I see it with my own eyes and test it with my own test equipment" he came at me with an attitude of "how dare you question me". At no point did Tom say exactly HOW it was that he was supposedly achieving 60K, or even give any specifications at all! No coil resistance, no coil inductance, no torque constant, no inertia, no signal to noise ratio for the position sensor -- nothing but "this is the fastest thing on earth and you have no excuse not to buy it".

Frankly, regardless of status and experience, if any vendor makes unusual or outlandish claims, they should absolutely expect any customer or potential customer to ask questions and -- at least initially -- not believe it.

Anyway, yes, when our scanners are released, you'll hear some claims that may very well be unbelievable to many people. For that reason I ABSOLUTELY EXPECT PEOPLE TO NOT BELIEVE IT, AND TO QUESTION OUR PERFORMANCE!!! ABSOLUTELY!!! However, we'll also have information to back it up. We'll be able to explain very precisely how it is that we are getting the new level of performance, and we'll present the science behind it.






Aha. I hadn't looked that closely at Cambridge documents. Normally it has to be derived...


Bill

[White-Light]

awesome... when/if these go from vaporware to shipping product

One thing about vapour, it usually condenses.

[swamidog]

i hope so! everyone wins when there are more options and more competition.

One thing about vapour, it usually condenses.

[EyeMagic]

Hello there,

As you know, I do not like to post as I prefer to keep my hands on my job and not walk around saying ''search Google to see who I am'' stuff.

Now, I have to post as I see that some people refer to me.

I kindly ask Mr. Benner to copy/paste the text from my emails that says "how dare you question me'' (OR EVEN IMPLIES THAT) , as he stated in his post.

If he finds it, I will personally ask a BIG ''SORRY, I AM WRONG''. But if not, then he has to leave the conversation about EyeMagic and Tom Kamaras and come back next time he has something true to say about others.

Or even better, why doesn't he post the entire conversation that we had regarding the new scanners and let the readers decide ? I kindly ask him to do that.

Maybe all this thing is because Pangolin wishes to make a cheap 60K scanner and we made it first ? No big deal ! The market is open to everyone. If they make a better and cheaper scanner, they are more than welcome. It is surprising though to see all this criticism from Pangolin (who hasn't made a scanner yet) and no criticism from Cambridge...!!!

Finally a word about mirror sizes. If we wanted to deceive customers, then we wouldn't publish mirror sizes but only aperture sizes. The scanners are adjusted to 54deg when shipped which means +/-13.5 deg mechanical. This creates a little overspill on the ''far right''. The numbers (3,8mm and 5mm) for the beams are what our customers have said that they have used with our mirrors with perfectly acceptable results (the overspill was not a real issue). And believe us, there are some very respected companies among them. That's why we ''dared'' to publish those numbers but always with the actual mirror size next to it, so the customer really knows what is all about.
As for the tilted-back scanner mount, we decided not to make it as the 90deg one can be used in left and right orientation. We tried to keep cost down as much as possible by not making and stocking 2 different mounts. Anyone that has seen the quality of our mount will understand.

I end this post, asking for one favor: Connect an LD2000 to a set of EMS-7000, display the ILDA test, the hysteresis test, the lasermedia test, the grid test or whatever test and just publish the photos. After all, what your customer wants to see is sharply displayed images, not forum posts or ''Google hits...''

All the best to everyone.

Tom Kamaras
EyeMagic

[sbk]

Finally a word about mirror sizes. If we wanted to deceive customers, then we wouldn't publish mirror sizes but only aperture sizes. The scanners are adjusted to 54deg when shipped which means +/-13.5 deg mechanical. This creates a little overspill on the ''far right''. The numbers (3,8mm and 5mm) for the beams are what our customers have said that they have used with our mirrors with perfectly acceptable results (the overspill was not a real issue).

I can confirm that my 5mm beams fits perfectly on the EMS7000 mirrors almost without overspill. Maybe I'm loosing 10mW on the "corona" of the beams but that's insignifiant power on a 4W RGB... And they are indeed working very well at 60kpps @6° (refering to the ILDA test pattern I posted there).

[dsli_jon]

Hi Tom -

Nice to see you here, albeit under duress...

Or even better, why doesn't he post the entire conversation that we had regarding the new scanners and let the readers decide?

Well, haven't you heard?? IF IT ISN'T PANGOLIN, IT'S KRRRRRAP!! (..that's just some satire, btw...

I'd just like to insert, a) a public Thank You, for creating EyeMagics, (..oh, and your other fine products, too, IRIS, etc.. ) .. I am very-keen to dig-into our first set of 7Ks, just been too busy with higher-priority projects, but... we'll give 'em a good gallop, at some-point, for-sure.. I'm highly-confident they, too, will prove 'deserving of a place' in our market.

b) We (DSLI) have been big-fans of 4000s, for years... And - we're able to be big fans of them, because WE USE THEM IN THE REAL-WORLD.. we don't testify to their worthyness via 'armchair-QB tests' on some bench in a clean-room - we have had them in all-manners of hostile-environments, heat / cold / dust / humidity / corrosive seaside-air, etc, and have 'beat on them' pretty doggone-hard, with 4000+ point frames, (..cuz, the 'Client' would not let us 'simplify' their logo, any-further than that...) at rediculous scaling, like 150+% (..read: severe scan-angles), and with all manner of mir-sizes, from 3mm, to 14mm...

Verdict? I would not hesitate to - yet, again - 'bank' a $25,000. show, in front of 36,000 people, on their performance..

..So, you have some 'real-world' / show-warrior testimony that EMS, as a product OPTION, are indeed, 'viable', and - imhexperience - a valuable part of a Pro sho-companies 'kit'... Am I stating they are "the Best"? No, because such a-statement is somewhat subjective... But I believe it can be fairly well-stated - they are a 'viable' option, alongside the Cambridge-line, and - for us, true Heros. I'm certain we'll be just as unforgiving with the 'Pangvos' whenever they actually-materialize... So, there.

c) Yeah, I too, find it 'strange' that the owner of 14 patents, and dominator of the first 10 pages of Google-searches under his namesake, feels the need to come 'decry' your product, in public.. and, of all places, Photonlexicon - which, we all know, is really pretty 'irrelevant' (...more 'satire'.. ..I guess, in the end, we'll just have to let the 'proof be in the scanning'... real-world testimony / case-studies / photos, etc, that-is (ie: 'sbk's fine-testimony, there ...

Summary: Keep up the good werk, Sir..
j